|
Post by 20469 on Nov 29, 2006 5:58:35 GMT -4
We have all marveled at the photo's taken from the hubble telescope of stars. What a wonderfull vantage point the moon should be for taking photo's of the sta field. even just for pretty pictures. Did Nasa really not think of this. A long exposer with the correct focul length could have catured the star field. Must have some scientific value. What a missed oppurtunity, Maybee we should go back and take some. I understand they hope to get back for the 50th aniverery, others think we might miss this dealine.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 29, 2006 6:07:43 GMT -4
20469, are you spamming all available threads?
Please take a moment to read a few of the existing threads. So far, every "idea" you have posted is something old, familiar, and long dismissed. It does not make you look particularly informed, you know, when all you do is mindlessly regurgitate something you read on a hoax-believer's web site. Try thinking for yourself someday. You might surprise yourself -- and us here -- and come up with something really new.
Or you might spend a moment reading the replies already made to your posts on other threads. No need to clutter up new ones when you are already in a dialog elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 29, 2006 18:43:50 GMT -4
others think we might miss this dealine.
What deadline, NASA's current plan is for 2020, it's published the plans for the first few landings using that date, there was never a need to go back by 2019. here was a hope to try for 2018, but that got dropped.
|
|
|
Post by graham2001 on May 30, 2007 8:48:26 GMT -4
Another thing to consider that it's not just US spacecraft that have flown by the moon. Soviet probes such as Zond & Luna all took photos of the moon. Zonds 7 & 8 took the Soviet version of NASAs 'earthrise' pictures, which surprise, surprise show no stars at all. There is also the matter of AsiaSat3, if it's impossible to get out of low Earth orbit, how was this commerical satellite able to fly past (2nd flyby diagram) the Moon twice in 1998. Edit:Added links to orbit diagrams that were missing from the linked set of articles on AsiaSat3 and to correct grammar.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Jun 7, 2007 17:09:43 GMT -4
A few quick replies, apologies for no direct quotes
Ivan, NASA took some 3 meter cores, well a 3 meter depth of the regolith would provide a far higher time frame of activity for samples, also the range of the samples across a mere 3 meters would assist in determination of frequency and intensity of nearby strikes from micrometeorites upwards, radioisotope and ejecta blanket thickness, as well as formation of granule size of material from heat fusion (allowing from nearby observation of crater to estimate mass/velocity of impact, as well as possible impactor construction) , this is a world without weathering erosion, 3 meters can hold a lot of history, unless of course the sample happened to dig down though a 3 meter thick deposition of ejecta from a recent (couple of centuries possible) large strike, but that would be statistical bad luck, it may (not a geologist so wouldn't be able to interpret the results even if presented) provide a reasonable history into approximate incident system radiation therefore increasing the knowledge of space hazards. I am sure Geologists the world over would love a 100-200 meter drilled core, but you know mass constraints and all
The following is to answer a question that is commonly posed, I thought this myself till I found out more, and specifically relates to.
Apollo missions as a cover up for ICBM research/Missile Saber rattling
asdf or guest, the Exo atmospheric delivery of biological weapons would be inefficient, for chemical and biological, a low level area dispersion is preferable, and is highly dependent on local weather conditions and therefore Theatre Adjusted in hours pref minutes before launch, this maybe why the majority of bio systems tended to be favoured to theatre based or INF ranged system, something tomahawk GLCM was perfectly suited for also aircraft delivery systems, in a likely strategic takeover scenario, BIO weapons would be placed at strategic targets, Water,Agricultural weaponry to weaken the opponent prior to an attack. As the reentry would not have to penetrate that deep through the atmosphere as an apollo rentry or even offer such an aerobraking face, a standard ICBM Rentry test would be sufficient (I Believe such RV tests where carried out in the Solomons (Kwajelein) and also white sands,
Until I looked at weaponry systems in detail (through work or released info)I believed that part of the moon shots remit was an extension of the ICBM development system,however the scale of the launchers involved are incongruous to Us deployment strategy, with the exception of the 9MT armed titans which where always rubble bounces in The extreme, the progression to soviet hardened launch silos required multiple more accurate targeting rather than massive general hits, hence the follow on development of the foot printed 3 MIRV designs of the minuteman mods with a considerable drop in yield than if they had been SRVd, this was to target a 1st strike counter force majority with a reasonable rate of disabling Airfields Silos and C3, leaving Theatre systems to clear up Mobile and Quick Strike, The Pershing missile system for example was the ultimate kick in the ass for the soviet Admin as there was now a weapon accurate and fast enough to hit Moscow with very little alert time. this co joined with the minuteman system, provided a reasonable counter force threat with Long range Bombers for Theatre specific and Mission specific Large Yield weapons for Rubble Bouncing, as well as several failed ICCM (inter continental cruise missile) systems (snark, Navajo (one other but the name escapes me for the minute)) provided the bulk Of delivery systems (Sole US, it operated in Conjunction with UK Strategy under the SIOPs)
After a certain degree of scale there is little point dropping scaled larger weapons onto an area, EG in an average urban environment the best bang for the buck (rubble for the rouble) is achieved at a higher number of warheads of lower yield than a single high yield warhead, in fact using 7x100 kt devices in a patterned target area provided a significantly higher simulated yield than a dual 1 MT strike (source: my work, but I should be able to find a reasonable piece of geometric modeling software on line)
therefore given that in 1967 using land Missile forces and excluding European theatre weapons the US had Minuteman 1 2, Titan, and maybe a few remaining Atlas Launchers, Given the fact that the Titan ICBM variant and the Minuteman where dedicated SS Mission profiles (the Solid fueled MM being blisteringly fast highly effective weapon systems and would start to vector towards target within seconds after launch
Question, What other purpose other than for The Lunar missions profile, or as a Very Very Heavy Satellite Lifter would a launch vehicle of the Saturn V Lift profile serve, and why would it be built?
Comparisons Saturn V to the Titan 2 System (Source astronautix.com)
SAT V :LEO Payload: 118 000 kg (260 000 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.00 degrees. Payload: 47 000 kg (103 000 lb). to a: Translunar trajectory. Titan2:LEO Payload: 3,100 kg (6,800 lb). to: 185 km Orbit
SAT V: Development Cost $: 7 439.600 million. in: 1966 average dollars. Launch Price $: 431.000 million. in: 1967 price dollars.(##). Titan 2: Development Cost $: 400.000 million. in: 1963 average dollars.Flyaway Unit Cost $: 3.158 million. in: 1969 unit dollars (##).
(##). if someone knows of a good site to standardise the figures A relative performance and cost for missile system/specialised space equipment cost can be reconciled, minuteman was a far cheaper fly away cost (1.32 Million per MM1 in 1964)
|
|
|
Post by emcsq on Aug 16, 2007 20:52:46 GMT -4
I understand Armstrong said both he and Aldrin were not able to see stars from the lunar surface. The common explanation for this is that their irises would have been too dilated from sunlight reflected from the moon surface and each others' suits, to be able to register the relatively dim stars, despite lack of atmospheric light diffusion that would completely block their light ,as on earth in daylight. The human eye reacts quickly to both increased and decreased light strengths. Therefore all that any of the A11 & A12-17 moon pairings would have had to do would have been to tilt their heads away from the surface into space and down sun for a few seconds for their eyes to open up enough to see the stars clearly. I find it a little odd that none of them apparently bothered to do that in such an incredible setting as on the surface of another world. After all, all of them had very keen interest in astronomy.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 16, 2007 20:59:40 GMT -4
I'm guessing you never saw the pirate themed episode of Mythbusters where they demonstrated just how long the adaptation to darkness can take.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 16, 2007 21:05:00 GMT -4
The human eye reacts quickly to both increased and decreased light strengths.
The human iris does, but the human retina does not. Both are required to adapt to darkness before stars can be seen.
I find it a little odd that none of them apparently bothered to do that in such an incredible setting as on the surface of another world.
Ed Mitchell did, and reported stars. Others may have as well. The Apollo 11 crew apparently did not; understandable considering the many things they had to do during their two-hour moonwalk.
Tilting one's head back in an Apollo space helmet is easier said than done. There is an integrated headrest that prevents this. Further, the LEVA does not move with the head. When one tilts one's head up inside an Apollo helmet, one sees the inside of the helmet top, not the sky.
There were many "incredible" aspects about visiting the lunar surface. What's so special about naked-eye star observation?
After all, all of them had very keen interest in astronomy.
Meaning exactly what?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 16, 2007 21:53:34 GMT -4
I'd suggest that since it is already back heavy, leaning backwards in an Apollo suit so that you can see the stars is probably not a good idea either, unless you are the sort that would enjoy falling on your sole life support unit with the local PLSS repair shop a mere 328,000 miles away.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 17, 2007 10:40:29 GMT -4
The human eye reacts quickly to both increased and decreased light strengths. Have you done your own experiments to prove or disprove this? I live in a nearly -dark-sky area, but after going outside from a brightly-lit room, when the seeing is good, it takes about thirty seconds to properly make out the brightest constellations, two or three minutes before I can see the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds and Omega Centauri, and even longer to see the Coalsack next to Crux and the dark "emu" shape which heads from there to Scorpius. I takes five or six minutes before I can see the dimmest objects and then mostly with averted vision, not direct. An excellent trick in New Zealand, where we have a 240 volt power system, is to hold a piece of white A4 paper next to a 200-watt lightbulb so that it is fully lit and stare at it for a few minutes, which is the same as staring at an average sunlit scene -- a light meter gives the same reading as the Sunny-16 rule -- f16 @ 1/ISO. But stare at the paper with one eye only and cover the other eye entirely with a dark-gloved hand, cupped in such a way that the eye can be kept open without producing tears but also without seeing a chink of light. After five or six minutes of this, rush outside and notice how incredibly different the stars look to the two eyes, with a ratio of about 16,000:1. The difference was so great that the first time I did this experiment I briefly felt dizzy and nauseous. It seems likely to me that even if an astronaut could get his eyes adapted to adequately see stars, he would get considerable flare on his visor from the lunar surface. The best place to see stars would be in lunar orbit, out of the sun and out of earthshine, and with the lights in his spacecraft turned off.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 17, 2007 11:48:46 GMT -4
An excellent trick in New Zealand, where we have a 240 volt power system, is to hold a piece of white A4 paper next to a 200-watt lightbulb so that it is fully lit and stare at it for a few minutes, which is the same as staring at an average sunlit scene -- a light meter gives the same reading as the Sunny-16 rule -- f16 @ 1/ISO. But stare at the paper with one eye only and cover the other eye entirely with a dark-gloved hand, cupped in such a way that the eye can be kept open without producing tears but also without seeing a chink of light. After five or six minutes of this, rush outside and notice how incredibly different the stars look to the two eyes, with a ratio of about 16,000:1. The difference was so great that the first time I did this experiment I briefly felt dizzy and nauseous. I had this happen to me once while observing the Moon and using an eye patch over my non-observing eye. After I looked away from the telescope and removed the eye patch, one eye was fully dark adapted and the other was not. This lasted for several minutes and was really quite disorienting. It actually scared me at first because I was unprepared for it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 17, 2007 12:16:00 GMT -4
After a long photo session I sometimes find that my viewfinder eye is focus-adapted, producing a similarly disorienting effect. It really pays to fiddle with the viewfinder diopter setting if you're going to be shooting for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 17, 2007 14:09:44 GMT -4
Interestingly, today's Washington Post mentioned teacher-astronaut Barbara Morgan's reply to a child's question about seeing the stars in space. I don't have it with me, but her reply was basically "yes, if my view is not lit up".
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Aug 17, 2007 15:12:45 GMT -4
Amazed Jay didn't quote from experience on stage. Backstage areas are lit -- 25w red or blue bulbs, 15w music stand bulbs, that sort of thing. It is easy enough to get your watch and comb off the prop table and quietly move to the wing to get ready for your entrance. Ah, but try navigating back there when you've just left the bright-lit stage!
For that matter; there are enough lights in aisles and seat ends and exit to allow the audience to safely navigate a darkened theater. During a musical, there could be dozens of 15w and above music stand lights shining from the pit. I've taken photographs of what the theater looks like in this light. It is bright enough so an experienced running crew can read the writing on small strips of colored tape on the floor. But just try making an exit after a big number in a musical!
The cover-one-eye trick helps. We used to do that in the Army, too, where one careless-exposed chemlight could ruin the night vision of an entire squad (and a trip flare would really ruin your day!) I still use a variation of that technique for night driving; I squint one eye against oncoming headlights.
Once again, this is a hoax claim from someone who wishes to Google "facts" and pontificate from behind a computer monitor. Stand up, go outside, and gain the actual experience!
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 18, 2007 5:53:57 GMT -4
Once again, this is a hoax claim from someone who wishes to Google "facts" and pontificate from behind a computer monitor. Stand up, go outside, and gain the actual experience! Exactly. The simple answer to the "no stars in the lunar surface photos" argument is to go outside on a clear night and take a properly-exposed photo of the moon when it is more than 20 degrees above the horizon. It's just a rock in the sun, so bracket a few exposures around the Sunny-16 rule if it is somewhere between first quarter, full, and last quarter. Then search the photo for the stars. There won't be any. Many HBs will then whaffle on about Earth's atmosphere being the problem, but they only show their ignorance in doing so. In fact, when the moon is fully eclipsed by Earth and a deep-red colour, a properly-exposed photo of it still doesn't show any stars.
|
|